Re: [bitcoin-dev] Separated bitcoin-consensus mailing list (was Re: Bitcoin XT Fork)

[Dave Scotese <dscotese@litmocracy.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3793 bytes --]

I guess every mailing list should have its own internal SNR discussions.

My answer is to respond when something is off-topic and offer a different
place for the topic.  I haven't been doing that, partly because no one else
has, but mostly because I figured I don't have a strong handle on what is
off-topic and what isn't.  Let's all start doing that.  Of course, someone
can object to the claim, "No, I don't think this is off-topic... blah blah
blah," and people can respond.  The norms will develop.  It just requires
some relative humility, courage, and honesty.

On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 12:28 PM, Warren Togami Jr. via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> FYI, a few developers including Wladimir, Greg, Peter Todd, Pieter, and
> Alex Morcos have been discussing what to do about improving the signal
> noise ratio on bitcoin-dev list.  One proposal similar to this discussion
> was to split it into multiple mailing lists.  It was pointed out that the
> less technical Bitcoin discussion list already existed in the past and
> nobody used it.  Generally the discussion went away from creating yet
> another mailing list and toward instituting an on-topic guidelines for
> bitcoin-dev.  Gavin, Wladimir, and a few of the others agreed to a simple
> few paragraphs written by Alex Morcos.  IIRC Wladimir agreed to post it.
> Has it been posted yet?
>
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 11:47 AM, Btc Drak via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:20 PM, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > bitcoin-dev for protocol discussion and bitcoin-core for Bitcoin Core
>> > discussion?
>>
>> Well -dev or both, I dont particularly see a difference at the moment,
>> and establishing two lists isnt really going to make a difference so
>> long as Bitcoin Core is the reference client, which it is by defacto.
>> The risk of having too many lists is interested stakeholders will miss
>> a discussions. Normal protocol and core discussions are usually pretty
>> low volume in any case.
>>
>> > As Jorge notes, a general discussion list has existed for a long time
>> with
>> > little use.
>>
>> I would suggest it's only because there havent been any rules for -dev
>> that would force general discussion over to the bitcoin list. On IRC
>> we regularly tell people in #bitcoin-dev they are OT and ask them to
>> move to #bitcoin and as a result, -dev remains quite clear of chit
>> chat, #bitcoin has a steady stream of general chatter.
>>
>> We could reduce the OT/noise of bitcoin-dev list considerably by
>> offloading the non-technical/academic debate to the bitcoin list. It
>> just needs a bit of shepherding. I am more than happy to help out.
>> Especially if the list already exists, we should consider making a
>> decision now.
>>
>> Who are the moderators for that list? Do we really want to use
>> sourceforge or are there alternatives, like another list on
>> linuxfoundation?
>>
>> ping @Warren.
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>


-- 
I like to provide some work at no charge to prove my value. Do you need a
techie?
I own Litmocracy <http://www.litmocracy.com> and Meme Racing
<http://www.memeracing.net> (in alpha).
I'm the webmaster for The Voluntaryist <http://www.voluntaryist.com> which
now accepts Bitcoin.
I also code for The Dollar Vigilante <http://dollarvigilante.com/>.
"He ought to find it more profitable to play by the rules" - Satoshi
Nakamoto

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5266 bytes --]